Given that no roleplay can be necessarily be viewed in an identical fashion due to the absence of emotional nuances in text play, there may be no guaranteed "facts" upon which to base discussions of religious topics, nor an honest and unbiased NPOV.
As long as you post to the discussion (as your Nation) with something like this ...
- "In the Tanah Burung Church, the ..."
- "Syskeyian Catholic doctrine clearly states ..."
... there will be no NPOV dispute, as long as the edits do not replace contrasting views.
This is NationStates, not real-life, and that is the perspective being shown here. If it differs from traditional or historic religious interpretations, so be it. There is NO single correct viewpoint in religion, so don't edit on the assumption that only yours is correct.
What do you think of my nation's religious pages, what could I do to improve them?
I see F's point, but I must disagree on the issue of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has, for centuries if not millennia, had a clearly defined stance on many different issues, including homosexuality. Whether these stances reflect the teachings of the "historical Jesus" or whether they were invented later is a different issue. If a NS country's church goes against the official RL church teaching, so be it, but they should say they are going against the traditional Church teaching, rather than merely doing something which "conservatives" abhor. ~Syskeyia
The fundamental difference that I see between your statement and mine is that you're implying a single, coherent "official NS history". I don't see any such thing.
I've seen simultaneous occupation of RL nations by five, ten, even twenty nations and regions at a time. How is the Church different? In free-form roleplay, we are not tied to ANY real-world events, people, or religions. In the single official related statement I've ever seen on the concept, the moderators specifically denied use of any links to real-world UN documentation as part of official game documents, specifically UN resolutions.
While this is an admittedly minor portion of the spectrum of roleplay in NationStates, I think it marks a clear deliniation between the so-called real world and the lively world of NationStates. If national leaders can name themselves Adolph Hitler or Josef Stalin, they may equally call their religious leaders Pope Whomever is Next.
If that offends you or your religious beliefs, then you may ignore those players as you ignore anyone who is roleplaying in a way you don't like. It doesn't give you the right to re-write their roleplay. → Frisbeeteria Θtalk
Should Agnosticism be added here, despite not being a religion? --Tiago Silva 04:21, 14 Jul 2005 (GMT)
I think so, because while it's not a specific religion, it's not an unbelief at it's core. Many people confuse Agnosticism with Athieism, and there are major fundamental differences in the two. GameJunkieJim 05:03, 14 Jul 2005 (GMT)
I'd say go for it. If you get a survey that says "What religion do you follow?", and you were agnostic (or athiest, for that matter), you would tick the box that says "agnostic" or "athiest". Lack of a religion, in my opinion, still qualifies as a religion. (Sort of.) Ceorana|ΦΔ 01:06, 20 October 2005 (GMT)